Hidden-camera Users: Journalists Or Spies?

TOM JICHA

It's as small as a decent-sized stogie, but it has become the biggest issue in TV journalism: the hidden camera. The question du jour is, how far should TV be allowed to go in using it?

ABC devoted an hour of PrimeTime Live and another 90 minutes on an extended Nightline/Viewpoint on Wednesday to this controversy. The catalyst for the programs was a $5.5 million judgment against ABC, resulting from an investigative series on allegedly deceptive sales practices by Food Lion supermarkets.

Interestingly, eight members of the jury said hidden cameras did not figure into their deliberations and verdict. They said they found against ABC because the producers gathering the story in 1992 lied about their backgrounds to get jobs at Food Lion. The jury decided this constituted fraud, trespass and breach of loyalty.

Does end justify means?

Why would ABC twist the central focus to hidden cameras? Possibly because it felt it could mount a stronger defense. Indeed, it rolled out numerous examples of how hidden cameras have benefited the public: exposing abuses of children in day-care centers, of patients in veterans' hospitals, of senior citizens in adult living facilities. Then there is the Food Lion case, where hidden-camera footage seemed to show meat and fish being rewrapped and redated after the recommended sale dates had expired. In its lawsuit, Food Lion didn't contest the accuracy of ABC's report, just the way the story was gathered. (On Wednesday's ABC shows, Food Lion representatives did challenge the reports.)

Who could argue that the end didn't justify the means in these cases?

For starters, anyone who feels that a positive end doesn't justify any means. If police were allowed to search homes without a warrant, we could put huge dents in crime. But do we want to become a police state to achieve this end?

A young Geraldo Rivera made his career with a hidden-camera expose of horrid conditions at a home for severely retarded people in New York. He had to break several laws to do it. Last month, he said it's a judgment call as to the point at which getting the story becomes paramount. Do you want someone like Geraldo deciding when it's OK to peep into your home or business?

The issue of hidden cameras isn't one of good reporting but of good television. A president was brought down in the Watergate investigation without hidden cameras. Solid journalism was all it took.

Diane Sawyer, who fronted the Food Lion report, said ABC had 70 on-the-record sources willing to talk about what they perceived as wrongdoing at Food Lion stores. Some told their stories Wednesday, and they were compelling. Arguably, more compelling than the hidden-camera footage shown. But TV demands pictures.

No sense of urgency

This isn't to say there should be no permissible use of hidden cameras. ABC also noted that it exposed congressmen partying in the tropics on the largesse of lobbyists. However, the lawmakers were on a public beach, where they have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

If there is any doubt that ABC's considerations had more to do with good TV than socially conscious reporting, they should have been eradicated by a comment from the audience. If ABC was convinced that Food Lion was selling tainted meat and fish, shouldn't the public have been warned immediately? The network does have a newscast every night. ABC held its Food Lion segment _ which, if it were accurate, meant people's lives were in danger for months.

Law enforcement, whose sole mandate is to protect the public, has to go to court for a warrant before it can invade people's privacy. Who monitors TV journalists? Ted Koppel volunteered an answer on Nightline/Viewpoint: ``Journalists are watching journalists.''